User:BigChem/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mustard gas

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

It is a historically significant application of chemistry in a context that saw its widespread application as a chemical weapon. The underlying chemistry seemed straightforward from first impressions.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is fairly concise with included information pertinent to a casual reader or someone looking for a general overview of the topic. It does not seem to have any facts not found elsewhere in the article. It covers the relevant points further expounded in the subsequent portions of the article, while still maintaining a level of detail (such as addressing a common misconception of mustard gas being thought of as a gas as opposed to liquid droplets) such that a more nuanced reading will be plenty informative.

The overall content of the article is appropriate considering the scientific aspect, as well as the broader historical and legalistic implications of mustard gas. The content is up to date as far as I can tell with no glaring omissions, and both the chemistry and physiological effects are dealt with as much rigour as the historical development and ‘use’ sections. The development sections blends together the history of its conception with the intimate chemical details of its initial inception to its maturation as a fully fledged instrument of war. There is also a tabulation of the various formulations and commonly stockpiled types of mustard gas. This table however, seems to have some missing information such as relevant links to PubChem and trivial names. There is also a subsection on ‘disposal’ and one on its usage within the context of chemotherapy. This is indicative of a holistic perspective taken on these chemicals, not just one which simply dismisses them as chemical weapons with a broad brush. A useful addition making for easy reading is a chronological list of the history of use of these weapons within various wars and military campaigns.

As hinted previously, the overall tone of the article is quite neutral, and the historical considerations are unbiased and written in an obtuse, unassuming manner, which is quite appropriate for a topic such as this. Primarily comprised of statements rather than interpretations of established facts, the article neither leans in a particular direction, nor leads one on to adopting a specific view. A fairly controversial portions of the article, namely the one discussing ‘tests on men’ talks about various tests conducted on numerous volunteers and servicemen. The article does so without attempt to gloss over facts or incident.

The article is well cited and all references certainly seem to work upon clicking them. It also appears that the type of sources referenced are broad and varied, ranging from journalistic pieces to news reposts (from reputable sources such as Reuters) and scientific studies covering the relevant chemistry and physiology relavent to the subject. This is to be expected, considering the numerous lenses with which to study this subject. Of the books and journals cited, there are those from both American/British (called allies in WW1) and German. This is quite germane, considering that it will be inevitable that both these opposing parties might have had different outlooks and ultimately, justifications, on their use of, and reaction to these chemical weapons.

Overall, the article is well written, structured, and organized. The writing style is not overly complex and is easy to follow. It can be argued that the scientific background required to understand this topic may have made for an easier reading, but even still, the chemistry and biological effects portion was explained concisely with plenty of references to relevant jargon and concepts not elaborated on within the article. In the organizational level, the article is structured as sections, with section 6 being further divided and then subdivided further, which serves to enhance the readability. The use of graphics is also appropriate. The aforementioned table deserves recognition here. The adverse effects and physiological effects section are punctuated with images depicting the burns and blisters one finds on those afflicted by this weapon. The chemistry section has a detailed and yet simple diagram depicting the mechanism of its reaction with species within ones body. There is also an inclusion of US informational poster on mustard gas which, while seemingly being an unnecessary addition, nevertheless adds some flair to the articles end.

The articles talk page indicates that most users do not have any blatant disagreements with any details of the article explicitly. There are more or less so minor corrections on some scientific details. There are however, a few mentions of additional instances where these weapons have been used to be added to the article, but these have yet to be verified. This article is a member of 5 wiki projects, one of which is high importance.

In summary, this article appears in all respects to be a well edited, well researched, and well put together compilation of all the relevant facts and information one would expect to see in one such as this. Having no glaring errors and omissions, a neutral tone, and well referenced information all makes for a reliable repository of knowledge on the subject. Being easily readable also helps.